MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Johnny - posted on 07/07/2010

8,686

26

321

I've seen a few interesting documentaries on Tower 7's collapse. The fire and engineering experts overwhelmingly agree that it was as a result of the fire's heat and the engineering of that building's structure. Now, not being an expert in fires and architecture myself, I can not be absolutely sure, but I honest do not believe that it was blown up. It is possible that the government paid off all these various independent investigators and even some people who themselves originally had suspicions, but I doubt it.

I do not think that the American government has been or is currently well enough organized to have successfully orchestrated 9/11 without anyone ever finding out about it. All of the hubub is simply conjecture & guessing, there has never been any real evidence. Were they unprepared and not paying attention to Al Qaeda when they should have been? Yup. But that is about the sum whole of their complicity in it.

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report."

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. "http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...

The History Channel did a good documentary debunking 9/11 myths, and used a lot of the information that Popular Mechanics obtained from their interviews.

As far as flight 93 goes, that plane was also carrying a full load of jet fuel, and was RAMMED into the ground at a high rate of speed. I would expect that under those circumstances, there would be next to nothing at a crash site other than a crater. In most plane crashes, the pilots are trying to AVOID crashing, so they impact at a slower rate of speed, and typically not inverted. (This is off the top of my head with my own limited knowledge of aircraft. If you need me to cite "professionals" I probably could.....)

ok, once again. how does the government get these black people to have unprotected sex, and how do they get them to smoke crack? i can ALMOST, not really, but almost see the government trafficking crack, but to introduce it as a way to get rid of black people is crazy. like christa or kelly said, do government agents hold guns to their heads forcing them smoke it, or have sex with whatever? it's ridiculous! and 9/11? what is the reasoning behind why you think that way? what did the government have to gain? did they do it to go to war? did they do it to keep us under control? what do you think is the reason?

next thing you know, people will be saying the government blew up the oil rig in the gulf so they can hike up prices of oil, or so we can get the point that we need to focus on renewable energy, or so we can get rid of a way of life for all the hillbillies down south, oh yeah, there are a lot of black people down south too, lets throw them in there along with the hillbillies. *eye roll*

If the intent was to wipe out blacks with AIDS and Crack, then these "really smart people", aren't actually that smart. Why not create a disease that targets only blacks? There would be a way to make the virus target certain characteristics unique or more predominate in the black population. If that was their intent they sure picked a poor method, for such smart people. It doesn’t make any sense. You are saying someone was smart enough to create the “smartest” virus we know of, yet they let chance and human behavior decide who will die from it? Same thing with the crack, I’ve never seen/done crack myself but is there a disclaimer saying “only suitable for the black population”? It just doesn’t make any sense. If they wanted to kill off an entire population releasing something like Ebola would have been much more effective. You could unleash it in a black neighborhood and before people even know what it is the whole area would be dead. And it requires very little contact to spread, that would seem more effective to me IF that was their purpose. Anyway. . . . . .

This is exactly what we need, isn't it? I mean, people actually take this seriously! With all the crap going on in the world today, let's focus on things that rank somewhere between silly and ludicrous.

I thought maybe there was a conspiracy to make me think I'm crazy 'cause every time I come to this particular thread, I hear voices. Then I realized it was the video Jenny posted about the War on Drugs...it goes into automatic play.

"A Plan of the New Fort at Pitts-Burgh", drawn by cartographer John Rocque and published in 1765.Main article: Siege of Fort PittIn one disputed incident, British soldiers in North America were said to have discussed intentionally infecting native people as part of a war effort. During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, William Trent, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the Pittsburgh smallpox hospital, "out of our regard to them", when the two Delaware men came to talk to him.[22] Letters exist between two other British officers, Jeffrey Amherst and Henry Bouquet, that explicitly advocate the idea of using smallpox-infested blankets to kill Indians.[22] Historians disagree as to whether Trent acted with the intent expressed by Bouquet and Amherst.

Whatever Trent's intent, a number of recent scholars consider doubtful the evidence connecting his gift of blankets to the smallpox outbreak. These scholars believe that the disease was most likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[23] In other words, while some officers expressed the desire to use biological warfare, smallpox was so widespread and so easy to catch that there were other opportunities for Native Americans to be infected. Others attribute the smallpox outbreak to the common Indian practice of digging up recent European graves to retrieve the clothes of those buried, some of whom had died from smallpox.

Expressing a desire does not mean that it was in fact done. It has not been proven.

I was, in fact, referring to that letter. He suggested it, which does not mean they actually DID it. I've heard the whole arguement before and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody ever gave the Indians blankets. You can believe what you want to believe, but I've read about this and made an informed decision based upon the evidence brought forth.

It wasn't just done by the Americans. It was a popular tactic of several armies. The one of the earlier forms of "germ warfare". I suppose if you can't believe that to be true, then you must find most of what has been recorded as history to be a "conspiracy theory'.

Tanya, perhaps you should try harder to get your humor across. I don't know what the heck you are talking about most of the time, forget being able to tell when you are joking. But whatev, moving on. . . . .

Oh crazy - just watched the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse. I'm a Christian and I think this guy is whacky. Revelations and Daniel are what we call "Apocalyptic Literature" and was written primarily as metaphor. It was purposefully coded language so whoever was occupying Palestine wouldn't understand the writings because otherwise the authors (and religious leaders) could be nailed for sedition. Under the Romans, that meant mass crucifixions. So it cracks me up when these "prophecy" guys come along and lay everything out all nice and neat in pretty little boxes. Silly we are.

Just a note on the 9/11 buildings doing a free fall, this past spring my husband and I went with friends to our science museum down in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St.Paul). There is an exhibition complete with video of the demolition of buildings (office buildings etc). They looked exactly like WTC #7. Just saying.

Jennie the Canadian Commie - just watched the entire video you posted. That was the most sobering thing I've watched in a long time. All the 9/11 conspiracies (did the government do it? Or not?) pale next to the "Drug War" nightmare.

To answer your first question Tanya, FEMA has coffins because they're creating a huge vampire army. The camps are not concentration camps - they're safe sites for the vampires who sleep during the day in the coffins provided by FEMA. Because the sunlight will burn them and they need to hide from those pesky vampire slayers. And the hidden messages at the Denver Airport are secret messages for those who can translate them, showing the date of the upcoming zombie invasion. Okay. I made that all up. But I'm pretty sure my cat is a space alien sending messages back to the mothership. (Creepy waa-waa music).

Just for the record I believe drugs and AIDS are aimed at the lower classes not just black people.

I also believe that the media and government are trying to keep racism alive so that the people don't work together.

"While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence given to back them up is usually based upon supposition and speculation, and ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959.""

Oh, and to answer the "doubt" of terrorists carrying this attack out with box cutters, I can guarantee you that it is quite probable. I was an AA flight attendant, and I quit in 2003. Our policy for decades was to cooperate with hijackers, allow them access to the cockpit and do what they said. More than likely we would have ended up in Cuba or wherever. The idea of suicidal fanatics using airplanes as bombs never crossed any of our minds. Obviously 9/11 changed that mindset, and things are quite different now. The plan was so simplistic, and it played on our own naive beliefs of how terroristic hijackers acted. Most criminals are normal in that they value life, especially their own. These freaks obviously valued their FUBAR mind set of death for their cause.

LaCI, I was saying that if the conspiracy was that Bush knew that would be more understandable.

Jenny, there is a very detailed documentary I saw shortly after 9/11 that clearly explains why the building collapsed and why it did. It had something to do with the placements of the stairwells. I have to go feed my little one, but if I have time later I will see if I can find it online.

66% of the HIV/AIDS cases in the US are from male-male contact or intravenous drug use or people who do both.

50% of them are African American

So I guess you could say they were targeted, but you can also deduct that they must be partaking in riskier behavior listed above. This isn't a disease you get by accident.

The article you quoted is total crap. There is nothing cited in her words. How does she know the picture was manmade? Did it have a sign to tell you? Do you even know what a picture of a virus looks like? Anyway please read this.

Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people.8 Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Linked in to this theory is the belief that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence given to back them up is usually based upon supposition and speculation, and ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959."

According to a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, African-Americans account for 38 percent of all AIDS cases in this country -- yet they represent only 12 percent of the population. And the disease has attacked millions of people in Africa, which has suffered from the pandemic more than anywhere else in the world.

AIDS is one of the most important weapons in the government arsenal of biological terrorism, declares Graves. He has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Diego demanding an open review of the facts he's uncovered, including the two most shocking elements:

- A Special Virus Flow Chart that details the government's "coordinated research program to develop a cancer virus that depletes the immune system."

- A photograph of a manmade virus that's virtually identical to the AIDS virus.

Yet this photograph was shot in 1971 -- 14 years before the known AIDS virus was discovered.

Graves also has documents from government and scientific leaders, which reveal sinister intentions on the part of scientists and government leaders.

On the drugs thing. Who generates the most income from the war on drugs? The police and the drug dealers of course. It is in the best interest of both sides to keep it illegal and keep the products flowing to monumental numbers.

I don't have a theory on what actually happened. I just know the freefall of the towers was weird seeing as there should have been SOME resistance due to the construction of the steel beemed building and stuff inside. Not free fall. It couldn't have fallen faster if it was made of butter. WTC 7 is another animal altogether. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/je... Keep in mind, this is the first (and last) skyscraper in HISTORY to be brought down by fire. Why? http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

I also question the crash site of Flight 93 as it appears the plane has disintegrated which is not consistant with other crash sites. I'd also like a clear picture of what hit the Pentagon. Being one of the most secure sites on Earth surely something better than the rookie quality footage we've seen could be released? I also question the behaviour of Bush and Cheney at the hearings afterward. Why wouldn't they be clear and open? If . So while I don't have a clue what happened that day, I know in my bones what they've told us is not the truth.

So what's your point? Were you there? Do you have any idea what fell onto or burned that building? Why would they randomly destroy that building? Wouldn't they do it when the tower fell so it wouldn't draw attention to itself?

Jenny, what doubts did you have when the towers fell? Have you ever crashed a giant plane into a building? How are they supposed to look as they fall?

You all are really grasping at straws here. . . .

If you all had said that Bush knew about the attacks and did nothing, in a pearl harbor like conspiracy, I could understand the argument that he wanted to go to war. But to actually bring the buildings down, it really makes me question your logic skills. Sorry.

I have to agree with Kelly. The Obama "birthers" have more "facts" to back up their arguments then anything that has been presented on this thread(I haven’t time to watch your video Jenny, but I will try) and THEY are the ones people like to paint as total wack jobs? Really?

Meth was used by various governments for productivity rather than holding people down. I'm not really a believer that crack was introduced by the government. I do believe in the governments involvement in drug trafficking.

Also, believing one thing is caused by the government does not mean they all are. Just because false flag tragedies have been orchestrated does not mean terrorists attacks have not occured or will not continue to occur.

As far as drugs, I believe the evidence is strong as to the government introducing crack to the US. I believe meth is a side product of prohibition and would never have been invented if amphetimines were legal. Although, wasn't meth used by soldiers years ago? Most synthetic drugs were originally invented by the government but not neccessarily put out to the public in the way crack was. I'll have to do some digging.